[Special mod thread] v.2.0

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Hey folks! As the old Special Mod Thread (you know, that place where you could go to file complaints and/or offer feedback to the community staff) has already become more than 2 years old and pretty clumsy, here's a new, fresh one!

Basically, as most of you may already know, this thread will be exclusively used for reporting and discussing all current breaches of the Rules of the Community (displayed on the community profile), as well as any possible staff decisions. A link to this thread will be displayed on the community's links sidebar.

You may feel free to report anything that you consider disruptive to the debate on talk_politics, or propose relevant actions by the moderators, or approve or protest about actions taken, or just give any opinions on staff decisions, the Rules themselves, or the community in general.

As the policy of screening all feedback after all points have been exhausted, has worked pretty nicely throughout the years (the majority of people who've used the Mod Thread preferring that their reports remain confidential between the staff and themselves), we'll continue this practice here, too. However, if you offer some feedback and you insist that it should remain visible for all, please notify us, and we will respect this requirement. If not explicitly noted, feedback threads will continue to be screened by default (after we've duly made sure with the member that this is appropriate, and all points have been thoroughly exhausted). The purpose of this policy is to avoid excessive drama and grudges, and to encourage a more sincere feedback.

Once again, we encourage the members to use this Mod Thread, or the private-message LJ function, whenever they have to share their opinion on issues concerning the community, or report violations of the Rules that we may have missed.

Finally, I remind of the way the Yellow/Red Card system works here. While official warnings are something we occasionally use with utmost reluctance, they are sometimes needed as a relatively diplomatic yet very explicit tool for extinguishing passions and/or systematic disruptive behavior. However we do believe the members are able to moderate themselves for the most part, so we trust that this system will continue to gather dust. :-)

______________________________________________
Here's how the Yellow/Red Card system works here:
= warning
+ = = out for a couple of days. + = out for good.
(A expires after 3 months).
______________________________________________

Thank you.

Comments

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

first

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

You're basing your rule system on soccer?

I guess it makes sense since so many people feign injuries.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

You've been dailyquoted! Congrats, you're now part of the Establishment(tm).

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

I think I'm definitely going to use this thread here for its real purpose, namely: reporting stuff to the staff. But not before all the drama has subsided. Right now it's pointless to attempt any feedback because obviously the passions are still flaring.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

I would like to register a formal complaint about Mahnmut's feet. I can smell them from here.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Yours ain't smellin' any better, yo!

[paedraggaidin.livejournal.com]

Thank you, mods. :)

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

I'l like to lodge a complaint to the mods about this obviously inflammatory post...

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

Why am I never around when shit starts to get real?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

As someone who's been the cause of a regular series of dramas on this community, I'd like to ask the people that usually happens with (namely 404, Gunslnger, Badlydrawnjeff, Yahvah, MrBogey, Montecristo, and others) if there is any way I can improve what I say and how I say it so as to avoid arguments? I will never claim any yielding on rather crucial areas where our views of the world are incompatible, but the continued problems with the set of threads the bunch of us get into is frankly something I'm not proud of and I'm wishing to use this to extend an olive branch. IMHO there's no reason to avoid an opportunity to at least moderate our set of issues and this, a public space, seems a good place to me to do this, if ya'll would prefer PMs that's OK, too. I'm tired of the endless wankery that happens and repeat that I'm offering an attempt to get out of and avoid this recurring.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Good question.

I like it better when a community is "lightly moderated"
I don't mind political discussion being allowed to get a little heated, a little personal, a little derailed.
Political junkies should be adults
Political junkies should have the balls to take to take a little heat

Moderation should be there to remove spam, remove trolls, and be there for when things really get out of hand.
Instead, moderation is being abused as some sort of Mommy to go run to whenever somebody feels slighted in the least.
I feel that's extremely abusive of volunteer Mods.

Just like how some folks like drama, some mods really like being able to solve "issues" that have come up. But I think it's high time to let drama run it's course. Sometimes you just got to get it all out. Instead of "solving" every time somebody feels offended, the mods ought to tell that person to grow some thicker skin, suck it up and deal with it because you're an adult now. And if you can't take a little jab or insult you should just leave the community. Because this is real life. And some times there are people we got to deal with that bug the shit out of us and we'll rib them occasionally.

Either that or just ban the person(s). But right now, these past few weeks, I notice a lot of coddling. And if you guys want to baby this community, that's your business and you can do all that fun labour involved, holding every whiners hand, telling them it's gonna be all right.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

I believe that this post:

http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1536866.html#comments

Or one on either side of it, is the 5000 th post to t_p

A milestone surely worthy of recognition.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

Hey, this is awesome! Will see to it :)

[musicpsych.livejournal.com]

Hey, quick question. Does my comment constitute trolling? If so, I apologize. This is a personal issue for me, but I don't know if what I wrote in response to a comment would constitute a personal attack or trolling. Let me know if I should edit it.

Thread: http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1720949.html?thread=136863605#t136863605

Specific comment/response: http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1720949.html?thread=136885365#t136885365

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Come on, that's pretty mild stuff. :-)

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

I am perfectly happy to accept moderation in this thread (and rather expected it):

http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1801005.html?thread=143716141&#t143716141

But it will have to come from someone I intend to speak to. And yes, I am serious about this. I made it very clear to Jeff last summer that I have given up ever talking to him again and that assessment has not changed one iota. I am fine accepting moderator input if what I said indeed rises to the level of requiring a warning or an official card. However, since I will not discuss anything with this moderator, it is more beneficial for all involved if that input/warning/admonishment comes from elsewhere.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Let's be clear - you can have whatever opinions you want about me. It's sad and unfortunate, but it is what it is. If you can't handle being moderated from someone you can't keep your personal opinions from, however. that's your problem, not mine. If you can't deal with that, there are plenty of other places you can go. There is no reason why the mod staff should be expected to cater to your feelings.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

It is very simple. I CANNOT and WILL NOT discuss ANYTHING with this particular mod. If there is a need to discuss my behavior, it is unable to be done with the mod in question.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Then that might cause you some serious problems in the future. You can continue be a child about it, or accept that your desires are irrelevant in this instance. This is not negotiable.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

I request the moderating staff not screen these.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Take your screencaps now, because they'll be treated like anything else once this is considered resolved. No special treatment.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

One of the things that fascinates me about this community is the way that it posits a topic, say controversial science, then prohibits posts on the topic. (Of course, not all posts are prohibited. Only posts that fail to pass the muster of the censor.)

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

sophia, I'll try to be gentle here. The issue was a continued number of posts that had little to no relationship to politics, which is the basic point of the community. I'd love to continue to see you contribute, and if there was an easy way to put your posts through some sort of a queue for now as we get to that point, we'd do it. As it stands, it's our viewpoint that showing an understanding of what's expected from posting is the bare minimum. You can call it censorship, which I suppose is true - we're censoring non-political material from the front of the community. Once you've shown some clearer understanding (and preferably without derailing other posts with cries of censorship and such), we should be able to clear this up.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

What's up with the comment screening? Is there a concern that others might find out exactly what is going on here?

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Oh, no problem. I assumed that the lack of further responses meant the thread was over, as per the rules of this thread.

Unscreened now.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

I must request that this be deleted.

http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1846544.html?view=145716496#t145716496

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Of course.

(frozen) (no subject)

[rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com]

You know Jeff insulting (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1858821.html?thread=146317829#t146317829) me is one thing, but, given that he is a mod, to insinuate that me reasoning is akin to me behaving like a petulant child while he's the real adult is beyond inappropriate and stifles discussion. This isn't the first time I've raised this as an issue. This isn't the first time other members have raised the issue. So serious question? Are mods supervenient to the community rules, i.e. has a mod ever been reprimanded beyond a thread freeze? If not, is it not a safe assumption that I can reply in similar fashion consistently to certain members of certain political dispositions without fear of reprisal?

(frozen) (no subject)

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

All right. Let's investigate that thing that you call an insult:

"Yelling "it's tautological" isn't an argument, and fails to address the issue at all. Not much to say other than that. Stamping one's feet about it doesn't do so, either."

That's what you call an insult? Well then, I guess the answer is yes, you can use that sort of language, as opposed to "moron" and other expletives that you've used in the past. Do we have clarity on the issue?

To your question (although I'm not sure why I should even be going defensive on this, but still, you asked).

Whenever something more than freezing and a mod remark is warranted, it WILL be delivered, as has been done over many times. Short of the implied suggestion of handing him a card for mninor incidents like this (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1823207.html?thread=144718311#t144718311) or this (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1830965.html?thread=145148981#t145148981), (which would've been ridiculous), I'm not sure what else you're expecting. (And you can consider these two links as a response to your question whether mods ever get reprimaded).

> is it not a safe assumption that I can reply in similar fashion consistently to certain members of certain political dispositions without fear of reprisal

Why, haven't (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1484547.html?thread=119400707#t119400707) you already (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1725836.html?thread=137334668#t137334668) repeatedly done (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1725836.html?thread=137335692#t137335692) exactly that already (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1301765.html?thread=146109445#t146109445)?

The remark you're referring to isn't even remotely as offensive or even caustic as one that would tend to pass the standard for warranting moderator intervention, as past experience has repeatedly indicated here - let alone the even heavier reprimand that you seem to be implying here. He's neither discussing your character nor is he making a personal qualification about you (which is what the gist of Rule #1 is about), and neither is he calling you any names. He's complaining about what he perceives to be your choice of manner of conducting discourse, albeit in a relatively more explicit terms. If that sort of complaint makes you unhappy, I'm sorry to learn that. But I suggest you report on personal insults when they REALLY happen to be the case, OK?

And being a mod has nothing to do with ANY of that, and something tells me you already know that, but for some reason you've singled out this particular, how did you call it, "certain member of certain political dispositions" to complain against. Lots and lots of people have basically made the same or a similar point throughout discussions here, and they didn't EVER get the reprimand that you're so insistant about - not to mention that you were nowhere near complaining about THEM.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Would it be possible to relax the restrictions against my posting so that I can cross-post this (http://sophia-sadek.livejournal.com/173278.html) here?

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Your request has been granted. Once you post it, we will put the restriction back, but in the future you will be able to make similar requests by presenting a pre-copy of the post.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

I'm lodging a direct complaint here about this post (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1956106.html?style=mine#comments). The post was a non-Friday Lulz post, but contained no personal commentary on political themes or issues, and whose "humor" was based entirely upon stereotypes of Americans as being unsophisticated, lazy, ignorant, and stupid. I believe further that the post could only have been expected to "inflame" the community's Americans - I can personally say, for example, that my initial response to the post was to be personally offended - and I think that it's self-evident that the post has done nothing to inspire or encourage substantive discussions on any political subjects. As such, I believe the post violates the community's rules against trolling and offensive stereotyping and fails to live up to the community's requirement that posts contain personal opinions (other than the offending stereotypes).

I am sure that my own comment here (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1956106.html?thread=149042954#t149042954) will be pointed to as an example for why I am in no position to complain about the post. So, I'll explain that I left that comment because I expected the mod team to be dismissive of any complaint about the post - an expectation I believe was born out here (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1956106.html?thread=149043466#t149043466) and here (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1956106.html?thread=149046026#t149046026) - and I felt that raising a mod thread complaint so soon in my reinstatement would itself be perceived as "disruptive (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1956106.html?thread=149054986#t149054986)". So, I attempted to lodge my criticism, in a fair-game fashion, by trying to be offensive in a way that non-Americans could recognize and, by doing so, perhaps to help them to see the post from my perspective.

Obviously, it didn't turn out that way, with one mod (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1956106.html?thread=149043466#t149043466) approving of the offensive stereotyping and another (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1956106.html?thread=149046026#t149046026) arguing that some random blogger's conceding that Americans are ignorant means that it's not only okay to make fun of Americans for being ignorant, it's "ironic, disingenuous, and outright stupid" (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1956106.html?thread=149054730#t149054730) for any American to make fun of anyone else for being ignorant.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

I object also that my responses in that comment thread to the pile-on I experienced have been described as "disruptive (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1956106.html?thread=149054986#t149054986)." While my comments might be fairly described as "passive aggressive," "passive aggressive" has become the lingua franca of this community, especially amongst active community members and mods, such as Luvdovz, Luz, Ddstory, Mahnmut, and Htpcl. They have been commenting and posting in that lingua franca for quite some time and almost all of their comments to me, since my reinstatement, have been dripping in sarcasm and passive aggression, so I am not sure why I am being called out for engaging in the same kind of behavior (even being accused of "passive aggression" when I'm legitimately asking on-topic questions, in other posts).

At any rate, "passive aggressive" comments, even "passive aggressive" comments about the quality of the community's posts, are not against this community's rules, nor is responding to comments that people leave for me, which I have consistently attempted to craft in ways that might move the discussion in a more productive direction (where possible) and that otherwise abide by the community's rules against personal attacks, etc. So I think it is highly inappropriate for the thread to have been frozen and for me to be singled out for having behaved disruptively. The only way my comments in that thread have been "disruptive" is if the mods have decided that lengthy comment threads are themselves "disruptive," which I think should be an obvious absurdity.

I also object to the way that this "disruptive" thread is being handled, as a disciplinary matter. I had no forewarning that the sort of comments I was engaged in would be viewed as "disruptive," nor indeed any expectation that a "disruptive" thread short of "trolling" would somehow be against this community's standards, so I think being given a "warning" - whatever that means in this context - with clear disciplinary consequences is unfair.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

It seems that a final comment was left for me, by someone, in my recent thread with Abomvubuso, but it was screened before I could read it (NB, I don't receive e-mail notifications).

I won't pursue further discussion (I understand what it means for a comment thread to be screened), but I do want to be sure that, if the comment included a warning, admonition, or further instruction, or something else of that nature, that I receive that message as intended.

Really, this is just an FYI. If you don't want to repeat the comment for me, either, that's fine. I'm not going to insist that it be revealed to me or anything. Just know I won't have seen it, then.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

The comment said the topic had been exhausted.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

This (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1973102.html?thread=149384814#t149384814) was an attempt to respond with humor to Htpcl's counterproductive flounce after I had repeatedly (and futilely) tried to engage him on the substance of his assertions. It was not intended to be (and was not) "petty" or "passive aggressive," not that there's anything wrong under this community's rules with that.

I also do not accept that the prior instances cited by Mahnmut were warnings that "petty, passive-aggressive" comments were theretofore proscribed. One comment, coming off as a commentary on the community, has been adequately addressed previously here, and I've since avoided that kind of commentary (I've even advised Peristaltor to avoid that kind of commentary, in the other thread). The other two examples were also not petty or passive-aggressive, and have been seriously misconstrued as such without giving me any opportunity to show otherwise. Indeed, it is utterly bizarre to suggest that they were: one was just my self-reporting on my own increased skepticism about a certain set of claims, based on the discovery that an apparently reliable source (that is, HuffPo) was completely off-base, which was inaccurately interpreted as a series of snipes at the relevant OP. The other was a reference to the fact that people are ignoring me in T_P. That's just a fact, albeit now an "open secret" per Htpcl's say-so, and it's completely unreasonable to think that I should have known better than to say anything about it lest it come off as "passive aggressive."

In addition, Mahnmut has frozen more of the above-linked thread than necessary, unless he means to suggest that my point-by-point deconstruction of Htpcl's links there was also for some reason "passive aggressive." There's far worse going on in that thread, in terms of petty, passive-aggressive behavior, than my attempt to be cheeky about another flounce-by-insult by Htpcl. Much of it by the mods, and none of it frozen. If you wanted to demonstrate to Peristaltor that my treatment in this community has been unfair, congratulations.

I'm done asking for explanations from the mod team in the Mod Thread - i.e., the place where the community's members should feel safest asking for such guidance - since asking for such has typically gotten not "explanations" or even "justifications" but lectures about how I should know better without having to ask. So now I'm just telling you: you're wrong. Again.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Putting aside whatever animosity you and I have for a second (and I hope you've noticed that I have not intervened in any way shape or form with your conduct while you've been here because of it, which is why I'm chiming in with the advice now), I really want you to think about what's been asked of you as part of your return here. It's pretty simple - you don't talk about other members of the community. Period. Is this something we hold you to a higher standard than others? Yes, but that's because of the history that got you removed in the first place. The line is not the "point by point destruction," it was when you went the step further, and condescendingly so. I know you can understand the difference, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that this sort of reminder gives the clarity that might not be obvious in the heat of the moment.

Whatever it is you're trying to get at here in the community, the message you should be taking away from it (the guidance, so to speak) is that you're not going to get there when you post comments like that. I don't know how many more times it needs to be expressed to you, and by how many other people. Others can call it a "pile on," or say you're being singled out, but they're also not back on an overly charitable basis to see if they can get along with others, either. If you stop talking about other people, you're not going to be getting adverse attention from the rest of the mod staff. It's that simple.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

While I am sure that calling attention to this here will again be cited as a separate instance of "causing drama," (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1973102.html?thread=149415278#t149415278) I feel obliged to urge you, here, to re-examine the way the mod group is moderating this community.

Abomvubuso's comment is precisely the kind of comment that I have been carded for making. Just a few days ago, I was explicitly told by members of the mod team (I can't tell you which ones right now, because of course you've screened all of those comments) that I could not do anything like "discussing the course of action" of an interlocutor. I was also told I could not engage in "non-constructive" commentary, which by any reasonable account, the zinger, "Because you just couldn't help it, could you" most certainly is. And, contrary to Mahnmut's flat assertion to the contrary and his conveniently narrow understanding of what an "ad hominem" is, that "zinger" is an irrelevant reference to Underlanker's person and character. If the Iceland parallel is inapplicable, then that can be demonstrated. Nothing is added to the debate by insinuating that the person "couldn't help" raising an obvious-seeming parallel, like they're just trying to start an off-topic fight rather than discussing relevant parallels.

I frankly have seen no point in raising the mods' objectionable behavior (or that of their friends) in the Mod Thread, because you have repeatedly demonstrated to me that such behavior is simply not open to question, as you're nearly always willing to excuse or justify that behavior - as Mahnmut has, of course, done here. Moreover, whenever I have tried to do so, the result has always been to have to endure a pile-on lecture, complete with warnings, from various members of the mod team about how I ought to be able to "do better" and stick to "discussing politics," with the implication here being that "talking politics" means never pointing out the mods' preferential treatment, hypocritical behavior, and ever-renewed patience for the community's most drama-promoting members. In addition, the practice of screening threads here ensures that the mods can never be held accountable by the community's members for their own inconsistent and often wildly paranoid efforts at moderation. Saying something brief and correct directly in the relevant context - "Personal attack" - is the best, most accountable, and least drama-promoting way to address mods' bad behavior.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry if you perceive the responses you're getting here, as "a pile-on lecture". I'm not sure how you imagine these exchanges should look like - perhaps appoint a single mod to respond to your queries, and restrict the others from joining the discussion, I'm not sure. Anyway.

First let me clear something out here. It has been clearly stated in this very thread that "If not explicitly noted, feedback threads will continue to be screened by default (after we've duly made sure with the member that this is appropriate, and all points have been thoroughly exhausted)". Which is exactly what we did the last time. All points had been thoroughly exhausted, we received no request from you to keep the thread visible, so we screened it after a couple of days of lack of activity on the thread. That said, we're prepared to unscreen it upon subsequent request. All your allegations of "wildly paranoid efforts at moderation" notwithstanding. The purpose of the screening policy has also been discussed and explained at great length.

I was explicitly told by members of the mod team ... that I could not do anything like "discussing the course of action" of an interlocutor

Precisely. And context does matter. In your case, hugely. You were told so, because it's what you had been kicked out for the first time, in the first place. Or don't you remember your constant harassment of Jeff, the "sociopath" comments, etc? It's precisely why you were only allowed back under the explicit condition to never resort to that sort of thing again - which you explicitly promised. More than once. Including at the end of our last conversation. I quote again:

""I absolutely intend to refrain from "personal provocations," and I am perfectly willing and able to stick to "talking politics.""

Evidently, you weren't sincere. You broke all your promises at the first opportunity. For the umpteenth time.

So, I only have to say this:

Saying something brief and correct directly in the relevant context - "Personal attack" - is the best, most accountable, and least drama-promoting way to address mods' bad behavior.

In your context, no, it isn't. You've promised at every corner to stick to talking politics and refraining from causing drama - and here we are again, discussing the very same thing over and over again.

I'm sick of this at this point. The warning stays.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I want to apologize to Fridi for not stating what I meant to say as I meant to say it. Given what was said she's right to unfriend me over it. I didn't think she supported anything, I thought what she wrote was sarcasm. Nonetheless what I said was indefensible and I'm not arguing otherwise. And while I'm at it, to Luzribeiro. I understand that I come across as rather too abrasive a lot of the time and I'm not going to pretend otherwise or expect people to tolerate it when it's especially bad.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Again, I do apologize if my abrasiveness offends people.

I do want to know, however, at what point saying "I'm not sure your motivations are what you say they are" and assuming bad faith is automatically acceptable? I know it's a bit hypocritical of me given I've done this to Jeff in the past, though I will be the first to admit that I am a hypocrite who indulges hypocrisy without shame a lot of the time. Or for that matter when it's acceptable to just give a one liner dismissing something as book knowledge and no further and expecting me to just take people's word for it when if I did that in reverse there'd be a good deal of whining and bitching and crying about how mean I'm being.

Even so, I do accept that my prior pattern of abrasiveness and that it's getting worse with age is making the bed I'm lying in, so I'm not defending my statements. There is nothing to defend with them.

I do want to emphasize that this is not to defend my behavior. The way I've been acting and the things I've said aren't defensible, nor is there any means to repair bridges that are well and truly burned. I know I've not been behaving especially well.